Ocean Warming

Yearly, the watermelon environmentalists (Green on the outside, red on the inside), re-release another chicken-little prediction about how everything environmentally is worse than they thought, because the oceans are warming more than they previously released. The problem is that the people who don't know a forcing factor from an albedo effect (and their rubes/audience) don't seem to read or understand the points they're making -- and those that do, aren't listened to.

History

2018 - WaPo "Startling Research find buildup of heat in Oceans"... blah, blah. [1] Total click bait, that a cursory glance would make a science based thinker laugh out loud.

... I could go on. Basically ever since the record hasn't matched the predictions (year-1), they've been trying to invent excuses why. So they presume that a heat sync like the ocean is hiding it, and pretend that we can measure the whole volume of the ocean down to a fraction of 1,000th of a degree, with a few hundred sensors. And of course the error rate exceeds any useful data -- but that won't stop the deceivers from saying "they found it", or their rubes from gobbling the clickbait up.

A cursory glance at the math and science (physics) makes the claims laughable, like the 2018 one (Resplandy et al). [8]

They are using CO2 as a proxy for temperature -- to prove that CO2 is rising, in order to cause the warming that they're not measuring and we're not seeing. If this sounds self-referencing, it's because it is

It says things like "If the Ocean was 30' deep, then warming would be...".... the Ocean averages 12,000' deep - so they're only off by 400x to sensationalize the numbers -- because we think the record is off by .01% isn't very interesting, and doesn't get the big headlines.

They make basic typos in the paper like '?' instead of '°' so it's "2?" instead of "2° C". Seriously, how peer reviewed is it, when no one noticed that?

Remember the basics of AGW theory: the predictions were that CO2 would absorb more light/heat, and thus the upper atmosphere (where CO2 is) would heat up first. Since that isn't happening, and hasn't been happening at the rates predicted since the models were first made (but especially in the last 20 years), they keep coming up with new excuses why they were right all along -- by accidentally disproving the theory itself.

This paper is trying to explain away why we haven't seen that warming -- and it's because the oceans (not the atmosphere) have been warming up faster than expected. Only that would prove more light is being absorbed by the oceans than expected - and thus less by CO2 in the atmosphere. It also makes no sense, because it's saying that a gas will heat up a liquid faster than the gas itself heats up? That's not how physics works. But if it was right, it proves that the whole theory and thus all the models are wrong. Well, "we know they're wrong as observations haven't come close to predictions -- but it's worse than we thought... now keep sending checks to me".

So ironically, if this paper is right (which seems highly unlikely), then we have more warming than expected... because the whole IPCC CO2 models are wrong all along, and it's not being absorbed by the atmosphere at all. Which kind of says that CO2 is not the cause of warming that started 100 years before we put any significant amount of CO2 -- and we're back to the question of what is. But if it's anything other than CO2, we know that the IPCC and all the AGW scarists have been debunked on everything they've been concluding for 40+ years.

Conclusion

This quote by Steven Goddard seems to sum it up, "If the government funded global cooling studies instead of global warming studies, 97% of climate scientists would be pushing global cooling."

You get what you incentivize -- and we're paying some perpetual college students to smoke dope, play video games, and occasionally write poorly thought out and supported papers, that their peer stoners approve of, to avoid getting a real job.

Anyone in the real sciences (not Climate Science), tears those things to shreds both logically and mathematically. But the sensationalism is front page news, the retractions are back page rebuttals, if ever. And they keep re-inventing the same studies each year, to be debunked slowly. So they have to create a new one next year. And the readers and believers are the one that are gullible enough to not actually read into any of the details, but just believe what their celebrities of climate alarmism tell them that their high priests told them.